/m/espn

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Anyway, apparently I'm one of the few who thinks this show could actually be good, especially if Keith makes an effort to be a little less crazy (which he has shown an ability to do in the past).

The show sounds like it could be good, but Olberman is a world class dick(and I'm a liberal) in how he treats everyone at the studio and expects himself to be treated, that rewarding him in any way is what is wrong with money in this world. Good people don't get breaks, while limited personality a-holes are constantly getting repeated chances to prove themselves. (and in Olberman's case he's proven beyond any reasonable doubt he's a Trump level d-bag.)

Anyway, apparently I'm one of the few who thinks this show could actually be good, especially if Keith makes an effort to be a little less crazy (which he has shown an ability to do in the past).

Agreed. The description here sounds like it is right up Keith's alley. The trick of course is for Keith to not be a dink to everyone behind the scenes and then get bored and move on. I wouldn't be shocked if this show is the best sports discussion show on television by a lengthy amount until that all happens though.

I think Olbermann's going to last a lot longer with ESPN2 than he did with Current. I have Friday, June 13, 2014, as the end of this deal, triggered when Bristol insists he go back to his original look on the Deuce.

The show sounds like it could be good, but Olberman is a world class dick(and I'm a liberal) in how he treats everyone at the studio and expects himself to be treated, that rewarding him in any way is what is wrong with money in this world.

From the 3rd party accounts I've read, Olbermann seems to be perfectly decent to the rank-and-file. He's uniformly terrible to management.

Jeff Greenfield has said that it's okay for a political figure to become a media talking head -- or for a media figure to enter politics -- but once you've done so, you can't switch back. I wonder how successful KO will be in switching back to commenting on sports.

I think he'll cycle through at least a full season of all five major sports. That puts his expiration date at November, 2014.

I always hated KO's "news" show. I realize that the world's full of Hannitys and Becks, but that doesn't mean that there needed to be an Olbermann. He's a blowhard, an anger fetishist, and a world-class ####.

But he used to be good at sports. There's a ~10% chance that he will be less of a jackass when talking about something he actually knows his butt from his elbow about.

Jeff Greenfield has said that it's okay for a political figure to become a media talking head -- or for a media figure to enter politics -- but once you've done so, you can't switch back. I wonder how successful KO will be in switching back to commenting on sports.

Olberman wasn't just dabbling around the edges of partisanship, either. He demonized those he disagreed with, often in a manner that could be politely characterized as "over the top". Hard to see those that he offended tuning in now.

Funny thing-I've just finished reading an oral history of ESPN and one thing that clearly comes across is how uniformly Keith was despised and how relieved pretty much everyone was,including Keith, when he departed.

#16 Not what happened in 1976 at least. What actually happened is even weirder.

Allen didn't join any celebrations and threatened to sit out the playoffs in some kind of weird dispute about Tony Taylor's status for the upcoming playoffs. Best I can tell, there was some question as to whether he'd be part of the playoff roster (40 year old middle infielders are exactly the kind of guys who often are surplus to a playoff run's requirements) and Allen chose to force the issue.

I do know that Taylor was part of the playoff roster and that Allen subsequently apologized to his teammates. I don't know that this incident hurt his standing with his teammates. Taylor was a pretty popular guy.

I don't really get why this guy keeps getting jobs. I watched his MSNBC show. It was terrible. And I'm probably as far left as he is. He's not funny, he doesn't really bring a fresh take on things, he's not particularly smart, and he's completely full of himself. What exactly does he bring to the table?

I feel like he's been coasting on the rep of being slightly smarter and funnier than your average sportscaster, which is an incredibly low bar to clear.

Olberman wasn't just dabbling around the edges of partisanship, either. He demonized those he disagreed with, often in a manner that could be politely characterized as "over the top". Hard to see those that he offended tuning in now.

I'm a gun-toting reactionary conservative voter, and I'd watch him without any problem as long as he stuck to baseball. The most significant barrier to me watching his show though is that it's on an ESPN channel rather than MLB Network. I'm not tuning away from MLB Tonight or a live game to watch some talk show.

My garnered impression of Olberman from the MSNBC show was that it was

Olberman's stint as political impresario was important because before him liberal punditry felt constrained to distinguish themselves from the conservative talk show hog-callers by playing nice. (See the nonentity who was Hannity's dupe and foil for so long.) That is a losing proposition in mass media settings that necessarily have to appeal to the yahoos in order to gain viewers and ratings. He showed liberals could do it. He didn't do it with style or finesse, but he did it with passion (a lot of it simulated, I suspect). Now, others are doing it better.

Alan Colmes. Never watched him in that context (no cable), but I was sad to learn he'd become such a joke. As I've noted before, he had a pleasant little syndicated radio show in, I guess, the mid-'90s.

Colmes wasn't suited for that sort of stuff--which is why Fox thought he was the perfect gimme for a transcendental dunderhead like Hannity, I'm sure.

I really enjoy the Diane Rehm show on NPR. She's probably liberal (and sounds like she's in her 90's, but a sharp 90-year old), but she's very fair and even-handed with the issues and with the pundits pontificating on those issues. She is above using those issues as just dog meat. She doesn't allow those guest to skirt the points their opponents make with mere re-assertions. She makes her guest address the predictable consequences of their views. How popular is she?

I really enjoy the Diane Rehm show on NPR. She's probably liberal (and sounds like she's in her 90's, but a sharp 90-year old), but she's very fair and even-handed with the issues and with the pundits pontificating on those issues. She is above using those issues as just dog meat. She doesn't allow those guest to skirt the points their opponents make with mere re-assertions. She makes her guest address the predictable consequences of their views. How popular is she?

I, too, enjoy her show. I know her voice kills it for a lot of people. But I think she's plenty popular amongst folks who like NPR. She is 77 and suffers from spasmodic dysphonia, which is why her voice is so distinctive (and, for most people "bad"). I was surprised to learn that she was that old - I thought she was only in her 60s. She generally assembles a pretty good panel on Fridays. One hour domestic, one hour international. I've no doubt she is a liberal but, as you say, she's pretty reasonable for a journalist. :)

Good, glad to hear she has a following. She should become an acquired taste among even those who don't like NPR. Intelligent, dispassionate all-encompassing discussion and debate, rather than over-the-top advocacy journalism, is rare and getting rarer. I only discovered her a couple of years ago.

meh, my twin and I are married to women who share the same birthday, and everyone always asks, "What are the odds of that, you guys sharing the same birthday and so do they?"

I think it's worse odds than you proposed. I think the interesting thing isn't that your spouses share a birthday, it's that you and your brother share a birth date (365.25:1) AND your spouses do as well (365.25:1 again). Someone here will tell me I'm wrong but I think that puts the odds at roughly 133,408 to 1. That probably needs to be reduced since you're twins but if you assume the rate of twins is 2% (that's what I've read I think that still puts the odds at about 18,262.5 to 1.

I really enjoy the Diane Rehm show on NPR. She's probably liberal (and sounds like she's in her 90's, but a sharp 90-year old), but she's very fair and even-handed with the issues and with the pundits pontificating on those issues. She is above using those issues as just dog meat. She doesn't allow those guest to skirt the points their opponents make with mere re-assertions. She makes her guest address the predictable consequences of their views. How popular is she?

I listened to Diane Rehm daily for years - she's terrific. It used to be my go-to morning program to fill the gap between Morning Edition and Fresh Air.

In terms of call-in shows on public radio, hers was really the only one that rivaled (the now late, lamented) Talk of the Nation.

Given the fact that I'm liberal, a political junkie, an NPR listener, and I've never heard of her, I'd say the answer is "not very."

Public radio stations are pretty autonomous as for what they do & don't carry from NPR, aren't they? Dunno where you are, but I suspect there's a half-decent chance your station of choice opts not to carry her program.

That said, I've heard her a few times, though even when the audio in my car (i.e. until the middle of last September) worked my NPR listening was pretty much limited to the 15 minutes or so it took me to drive to work in the morning.

Edit: Just learned from Canker's post that apparently her program airs in the morning. Pretty sure it's carried evenings around here. I could, of course, be very wrong.

Was on the fence about Olbermann's return to ESPN until I read this this morning from Phil Mushnick:

Despite his extraordinary ability to big-time himself out of big-time gigs, Keith Olbermann this week was returned to ESPN. That’s right, first Ray Lewis, now Olbermann!

Even in a crafted news release, Olbermann’s talent to demonstrate he’s snarky, self-infatuated, and, in time, insufferable, shined through. Perhaps borrowing from Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s Word War II vow to the Philippines, Olbermann seemed to declare, “I have returned!” Ready?

“Apart from the opportunity to try to create a nightly hour of sports television that no fan can afford to miss, I’m overwhelmed by the chance to begin anew at ESPN. I’ve been gone for 16 years and not one day in that time has passed without someone connecting me to the network.

“Our histories are indelibly intertwined, and, frankly, I have long wished that I had the chance to make sure the totality of that story would be a completely positive one.

“I’m grateful to friends and bosses — old and new — who have permitted that opportunity to come to pass. I’m not going to waste it.”

Good grief. Must’ve taken several operatives to complete the typing of that transcription, given they were intertwined by the totality of nausea.